Kreiz hit the nail on the head, I think, because WE (America at large) will view this as a political debate and hammer it to death. Ideally, we could take a Centrist view and argue for the good points from the left and the good points from the right. Realistically, when the rain comes, there is no center view, you either take shelter or get ……. wet?

Cicero set the table well …. choosing something that is palatable will depend on appetite.

Kreiz hit the nail on the head, I think, because WE (America at large) will view this as a political debate and hammer it to death. Ideally, we could take a Centrist view and argue for the good points from the left and the good points from the right. Realistically, when the rain comes, there is no center view, you either take shelter or get ……. wet?

Cicero set the table wel …. choosing something that is palatable will depend on appetite.

I would be willing to consider Jimmy’s thought if I didn’t suspect that it’s pure fantasy. We’re far more likely to see success in simply “focussing their efforts” on killing each other instead of trying to kill us. Perhaps we’ve been thinking about “hearts and minds” the wrong way. (Please excuse my temporary barbarism here.)

Here’s a question for everyone though, and it’s one I’ve been asking myself for a week or so now. I don’t have a good answer because I’m light years away from being anything other than a very interested party.

If Shi’a nuclear proliferation becomes a reality, first, how many nukes are we likely to be talking about? And second, if it’s a small number, possibly one, as I assume it would be… would Israel be the first target or would the United States?

These are strange times indeed.

God forbid there is a nuclear terror attack in a western capitol. We may have to start thinking about the religion of 1.3 billion people in the same light of Imperial Japan.